Pages

Monday, January 03, 2011

Any steeples in Peoples?

Recently, Glenn Peoples has been drawing a distinction over believing what's "orthodox" in contrast to behaving in a "Christian" manner. The context in which he draws this distinction is over his comments about WLC, our responses to him, and so on. Check out this post for context.

Of course, I take it Glenn would agree a genuine Christian should believe what's orthodox as well as behave in a "Christian" manner.

But the problem is that Glenn and I would disagree on what actually constitutes orthodox Christianity as well as ethical Christian behavior.

With regard to the former, Glenn denies inerrancy as well as supports annihiliationism (PDF). I think such a stance casts doubt over whether Glenn's beliefs are orthodox. But that's another issue and debate. For the time being I'll simply reference the responses in the links above and take such beliefs as unorthodox.

So the issue at hand is Glenn's allegation that we're not behaving in a "Christian" manner:

1. Since I don't think Glenn is orthodox in the first place, I don't necessarily think he should be treated as a fellow Christian.

2. Of course, I'm willing to be gracious to him just like I'm willing to be gracious to anyone else in general. But then the problem is that he's not a random stranger or whatever. Rather, he's a professing evangelical Christian who is explicitly teaching and advocating doctrines like annihilationism and denying innerancy so that others would be persuaded about his beliefs as well. If I might be so blunt, he's teaching falsehoods and trying to rope others in.

Also, he holds a doctorate (I believe) in political philosophy and has tried to acquire teaching posts at evangelical seminaries and the like. In fact, if he could acquire a teaching post, then it's possible he'd teach and influence others with such beliefs as well. After all, he cites his "areas of ability" to include the philosophy of religion, ethics and meta-ethics, political philosophy, philosophical theology, moral theology and Christian ethics, historical and systematic theology, intro to OT and NT studies, and biblical theology. Several of these could serve as platforms for Glenn to launch into topics like inerrancy and hell.

If we have to compare, he's more akin to a wolf in sheep's clothing than a fellow Christian.

Or if he's a genuine Christian teaching falsehoods, perhaps someone like Peter Enns, then the situation is still unwelcome. It's more akin to receiving friendly fire in the midst of combat. If that's what's happening, one would have to suppress the friendly fire in order to protect the rest of the troops.

Hence my stance in regard to his stance is, first and foremost, one of opposition to what he's teaching as true when it's false. The links I provide above are a good start in dealing with what he teaches (although he's responded to them on his website).

3. Given that Glenn can't see such central Christian doctrines as inerrancy, I don't immediately trust his judgment on what it means to behave as a "Christian" either. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in regard to what the Bible teaches on other doctrines or topics including Christian behavior when he continues to make and advocate such egregious errors on central doctrines.

4. A lot of what Glenn is hot and bothered about is personal attacks against his character. He accuses us of lying about him. He accuses us of calling him a liberal when (he says) he's not.

5. We've posted about ad hominem attacks in the past. Just search for "ad hominem" in our archives.

6. On more than one occasion we've referenced philosopher and logician Peter Geach who has argued for the legitimacy of tu quoque arguments in certain contexts. The following is from his book Reason and Argument:

Ad hominem arguments. This Latin term indicates that these are arguments addressed to a particular man - in fact, the other fellow you are disputing with. You start from something he believes as a premise, and infer a conclusion he won't admit to be true. If you have not been cheating in your reasoning, you will have shown that your opponent’s present body of beliefs is inconsistent and it's up to him to modify it somewhere. This argumentative trick is so unwelcome to the victim that he is likely to regard it as cheating: bad old logic books even speak of the ad hominem fallacy. But an ad hominem argument may be perfectly fair play.

Let us consider a kind of dispute that might easily arise:

A. Foxhunting ought to be abolished; it is cruel to the victim and degrading to the participants.

B. But you eat meat; and I'll bet you've never worried about whether the killing of the animals you eat is cruel to them and degrading to the butchers.

No umpire is entitled at this point to call out "Ad hominem! Foul!" It is true that B's remark does nothing to settle the substantive question of whether foxhunting should be abolished; but then B was not pretending to do this; B was challengingly asking how A could consistently condemn foxhunting without also condemning something A clearly does not wish to condemn. Perhaps A could meet the challenge, perhaps not; anyhow the challenge is a fair one - as we saw, you cannot just brush aside a challenge to your consistency, or say inconsistency doesn't matter.

Ad hominem arguments are not just a way of winning a dispute: a logically sound ad hominem argues does a service, even if an unwelcome one, to its victim - it shows him that his present position is untenable and must be modified. Of course people often do not like to be disturbed in their comfortable inconsistencies; that is why ad hominem arguments have a bad name.

7. What's more, the Bible itself uses ad hominem. For example, Jesus and others like Peter and Paul attack the character of false teachers.

8. Of course, Glenn doesn't mind returning the favor in lying about Steve and calling him a liberal. Not to mention denigrating other Christians. By doing so, Glenn isn't dealing with our arguments. Rather, he's attacking our character as well. But, apparently according to Glenn, it's wrong for us to behave like this while it's fine for him to behave like this. It's a double standard: one for "open-minded" Christians like him and another for "close-minded" Christians like us.

9. In any case, Glenn is the one who kicked off the insults by calling Christians like us "ignorant" and "insular" about WLC and his comments.

10. Not to mention Glenn has reserved some rather ungracious words to ascribe to conservative Christian motives in hiring faculty. For example, Glenn has said that "the conservative Christian community wants its scholars as long as it can control them."

Or take Glenn's words here: "For my part, I think the problem with a lot of seminaries is that they are too theologically partisan, and that is why they don’t develop a culture of rigorously critical thinking." Hm, so "partisans" are incapable of "critical thinking." Now, I wonder, would Glenn further suggest non-partisans (of which I take it he is one) are the ones capable of critical thinking?

Besides, what does it mean to be "theologically partisan"? Does it mean to adhere to a confession of faith? Or something else? If a seminary doesn't want to be "partisan," does it have to allow for someone or some persons to both teach in favor of miracles as well as against the possibility of miracles (e.g. the resurrection)? Or someone to teach in favor of inerrancy as well as teach against inerrancy - which, BTW, would be rather convenient for Glenn? However, isn't any seminary bound to be "partisan" in some fashion? Isn't Glenn himself "partisan" in teaching against inerrancy and espousing conditional immortality and annihilationism?

Anyway, getting back to the point, these are instances of Glenn's personal attacks against the character of a group of Christians despite his professed antipathy to personal attacks against people's characters. Sure, Glenn advises evangelical Christians to "listen carefully," to be "gracious" and "charitable," yet he hardly evinces these qualities in his interactions with us and other Christians.

11. Perhaps Glenn would do well to read and meditate on a passage like Matt. 7:3-5. Although I'll note Jesus makes a personal character "attack" on these Christians when he calls them "hypocrites." I point this out because it might not sit too well with Glenn who would decry such ad hominem rhetoric and behavior as unbecoming of a Christian.

12. Glenn accuses us of not behaving in a manner which is consistent with Christian ethics. By the same token, I'm surprised that one of Glenn's "areas of ability" is Christian ethics in light of the fact that he apparently likewise doesn't behave in a manner consistent with Christian ethics.

Of course, someone like me might retort that I've never formally studied ethics. Certainly I'm no student of ethics let alone an ethicist. But I don't know what justification Glenn will provide for his unethical Christian behavior given that Christian ethics is one of his "areas of ability."

10 comments:

Patrick, what would you say to someone like me who personally believes in inerrancy and hopes that inerrancy is true, but also thinks that the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on inerrancy? I think it's a logical and theological possibility that Scriptural inerrancy is false. Though, I do suspect that inerrancy is true. In one sense it doesn't matter because we don't have access to the autographs, and inerrancy is attributed to them, not the copies. The historic Christian doctrine of the preservation of the Bible and its manuscripts doesn't require the kind of accuracy that KJV Only folks expect for the Bible or Muslims for the Qur'an.

The following is a partial transcript I typed of William Lane Craig's podcast titled "What Is Inerrancy?" It makes some sense to me.

:::::Harris: The debate often centers on Inerrancy with skeptics of the Christian faith and those who are considering [it]...I've seen it go round for years and years just on Inerrancy and that often detracts from the *person* of Christ.

Craig: Yeah, I think that's just a hugh mistake, Kevin. Because now, what you're trying to make the focus of your evangelism is *Inerrancy* rather than *Christ*...as you say. It's *Christ* that is the center of the Gospel. And so, *He* ought to be the stumbling stone. Not the doctrine of Inerrancy. Inerrancy is an in-house debate for someone who is already a Christian.

Harris: Okay, alright.

Craig: It's an in-house argument about what corollaries are there to the concept of inspiration.

Harris: Now that is very important because, again, you can go off on a rabbit trail for years with a person on Inerrancy. And, again, to detract you from [what Kevin says is garbled but he seems to say "the central truths of the gospel."]

Craig: It would actually...here's the...here's the serious [thing]...it would keep people from salvation. Which is just horrible. If people have to jump through the hoops of Biblical Inerrancy in order to become a Christian...you will actually prevent people from coming to know Christ. By forcing the unbeliever to embrace this belief in order to be saved."

Patrick said: "1. Since I don't think Glenn is orthodox in the first place, I don't necessarily think he should be treated as a fellow Christian."

What's true here, is 'how' one sees orthodoxy. What do you mean by orthodox?

Most Christians, be they Calvinist, Arminians, whatever, tend to see orthodox as their particular view, or they would not hold that view. Most faithful desire to hold an orthodox view, but few distinguish between ecclesiastical orthodoxy and biblical orthodoxy.

This is not to paint holding an ecclesiastical orthodoxy as wrong, but just as one should know its strengths (against other traditions), one should also recognize its shortcomings and be able to differentiate it from biblical orthodoxy by recognizing where the margins lay.

It is a point of humility to recognize that though one believes one's ecclesiastical orthodoxy is biblical, it is not necessary completely biblical; which is to say our knowledge is not pure, or complete.

When Jesus returns we will all see things exactly clearly, and exactly right; it is as certain we will all be surprised at who are identified as sheep, and who as goats, (and who as wolves in sheep's clothing).

Within reformed circles, there are some Christian's who mistake theological positions with biblical orthodoxy and accordingly fail to treat fellow Christians as Christians.

Mistaking some theological position as 'biblical' orthodoxy is no worse a mistake than using philosophy to justify a theological position.

"Ad hominem arguments are not just a way of winning a dispute: a logically sound ad hominem argues does a service, even if an unwelcome one, to its victim - it shows him that his present position is untenable and must be modified. Of course people often do not like to be disturbed in their comfortable inconsistencies; that is why ad hominem arguments have a bad name.

7. What's more, the Bible itself uses ad hominem. For example, Jesus and others like Peter and Paul attack the character of false teachers."

As far as your other comments, I don't know if you're alluding to me or Glenn Peoples or Christians or perhaps Reformed folks in general. But I think I'd more or less agree with your sentiments, although I'd probably put it differently.

Maybe it'd be a good idea to read up on inerrancy. Obviously I don't know you personally, so I can't figure out where you're "at" on the issue, but there are good books like the intro level 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible (which touches on inerrancy indirectly), D.A. Carson's recently released Collected Writings on Scripture, as well as various articles online and elsewhere about inerrancy. Historically John Woodbridge has traced inerrancy down through the ages in his Biblical Authority. There's also the more philosophical and theological like Paul Helm's The Divine Revelation and John Frame's Doctrine of the Word of God (which likewise came out recently). G.K. Beale also published a book titled The Erosion of Inerrancy, I think it's called. I'm sure others could recommend far better books for you than I can though.

At issue at the moment isn't whether one needs to believe in inerrancy before one becomes a Christian, but whether a Christian ought to believe in inerrancy. There are various ways to approach this. But I'll just say for now, speaking personally and anecdotally, when God saved me, I instantly went from not being sure if he even existed to *knowing* the Bible was God's direct communication and revelation to us, that it was true in all it said, that it came with power and authority, etc. Pretty much everything that I'd later recognize as part and parcel in the traditional conservative definition of "inerrancy." But obviously anecdotes aren't arguments.

When Jesus returns we will all see things exactly clearly, and exactly right; it is as certain we will all be surprised at who are identified as sheep, and who as goats, (and who as wolves in sheep's clothing).

That is an interesting perspective.

What about when you die? What happens then if you are gone from this earth before He returns? Are you just going to lay down and rest until the Lord returns to know who the sheep and goats and wolves were and are or to see things exactly clearly or right?

I think not.

Not to go into the theology of it much, except to publish a quotation from Dr. J.V. Fesko's writings from his published book Justification, Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, P&R Publishing, page 409, I would offer this perspective in light of how what happens, when, to whom, death is experienced:

" ... If Christ is the last Adam, and he is the fountainhead of the age to come, of the eschaton, then the justification pronounced over those who place their faith in him is eschatological, final, and irreversible. This means that the verdict from the final judgment on the last day has been declared in the present. Justification does not merely restore the sinner to the potentially defectible state of the first Adam only to face probation once again. Or, in simpler terms, justification does not merely return us to the garden. Rather, noting the inherently eschatological nature of justification tells us that Christ has performed the work for us and that we enter the eternal state by faith alone in him; by faith, we are propelled into the indefectible state of the last Adam."

In part, some of where Dr. Fesko draws from to give this perspective, I suspect, come from Paul's writings at 2 Corinthians 5 where he opens up this idea of our place with God at our passing?

"Patrick, what would you say to someone like me who personally believes in inerrancy and hopes that inerrancy is true, but also thinks that the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on inerrancy? I think it's a logical and theological possibility that Scriptural inerrancy is false."

The short answer is that I don't think we should play a game of chicken with God.

"Though, I do suspect that inerrancy is true."

That's pretty weak.

"In one sense it doesn't matter because we don't have access to the autographs, and inerrancy is attributed to them, not the copies. The historic Christian doctrine of the preservation of the Bible and its manuscripts doesn't require the kind of accuracy that KJV Only folks expect for the Bible or Muslims for the Qur'an."

Many of the stock objections to inerrancy can't be reduced to text-critical issues. Some can, but not all.

"What's true here, is 'how' one sees orthodoxy. What do you mean by orthodox?"

Scriptural.

"Most Christians, be they Calvinist, Arminians, whatever, tend to see orthodox as their particular view, or they would not hold that view. Most faithful desire to hold an orthodox view, but few distinguish between ecclesiastical orthodoxy and biblical orthodoxy."

That's one of those big fuzzy claims which could be true or false depending on the individual. So it's useless. By pointing everywhere, it points nowhere in particular. A spinning compass.

"This is not to paint holding an ecclesiastical orthodoxy as wrong, but just as one should know its strengths (against other traditions), one should also recognize its shortcomings and be able to differentiate it from biblical orthodoxy by recognizing where the margins lay."

You're dishing out truisms. Nothing is accomplished by this since everyone can nod in agreement. They see themselves on the right side of the boundary, and others on the wrong side of the boundary. So statements like this have no directive value. They offer no concrete guidance. They leave the reader in the same state of mind he was before. If he suffers from prejudice, they reinforce his prejudice.

"It is a point of humility to recognize that though one believes one's ecclesiastical orthodoxy is biblical, it is not necessary completely biblical; which is to say our knowledge is not pure, or complete."

Another back-patting cliche.

"When Jesus returns we will all see things exactly clearly, and exactly right; it is as certain we will all be surprised at who are identified as sheep, and who as goats, (and who as wolves in sheep's clothing)."

But we're not in that position now, so we have to work with what we've got.

"Within reformed circles, there are some Christian's who mistake theological positions with biblical orthodoxy and accordingly fail to treat fellow Christians as Christians."

That's a revealing example of your own unconscious prejudice. I've dealt with lots of militant Catholics, Arminians, Orthodox, and a few Lutherans. I don't find any difference in the way they treat their opponents.

And that's the problem with your unctious platitudes. They blind you to your own chauvinism. You're not above the rest of us, looking down.